Why I hate Linux

[AtmaWeapon]

Now, try and control yourselves Linux fanboys. I'm not an M$ fanboy at all, but I am going to present to you a clear analysis of my experience with Linux to try and explain why I prefer Windows to Linux.

I put Mandrake Linux on my P133, 32MB RAM, 2MB video card system, because I have a friend who continuously expounds about the performance advantage of Linux, and how you could get it to run on a toaster. I used both the KDE and Gnome environments, and I understand the performance would have been far better in a pure CLI, but that's not fair because there's no rendering to be done and Windows isn't pure CLI. Not to mention there was no option anywhere to exit the GUI to a shell.

Here's some nice little comparisons between Win98 and Linux I did on that computer:

BOOT:
Linux: ~10 minutes
Windows98: ~2 minutes

MOVING AN ICON FROM ONE SIDE OF THE DESKTOP TO ANOTHER:
Linux(KDE): ~1 minute
Windows98: ~1 second

VIEWING CONTENTS OF DRIVE C:
Linux(KDE and Gnome's average): ~1 minute, not counting the minute it took to start up the graphical windows explorer clone
Windows98: ~15 seconds

PLAYING AN MP3:
Linux: I don't know. Despite numerous web sites that claimed my Ensoniq card was fully compatible with Mandrake, it never recognized my sound card.
Windows98: Works fine, system performance is degraded.

INSTALLING HARDWARE:
Linux: PnP Device 12341324: please email this information to [email protected] so developers can make a driver for this device.
Windows: Windows has detected new hardware: Ensoniq Vivo90 Would you like to install it now?

Stability:
Linux: Over the 5 hours I ran it, Linux froze and required system shutdown twice, and programs hung almost every other time I ran them.
Windows98: Takes mine a whole day to crash, using the same rigorous regimen of one program at a time I used in Linux.

So, as you can see, I had a bad experience with Linux. I'm sure you are going to jump all over me and tell me it's not fair to judge Linux on such a pathetic computer. My response is Windows worked fine on it, and I only met minimum system requirements. I don't know what the system requirements for Linux are, but I do know the KDE and Gnome shells waste too much processing power on trying to look like Mac OS X (a problem WinXP has as well). My problem is that I feel an OS should have very minimal system requirements. Regardless of what is the industry standard computer, I feel an OS should be compatible with the average computer. I'm not saying it should run on a 486, but I think it's ridiculous that Win95 only required a Pentium 90 and 32 recommended MB of RAM, and today WinXP requires far more than that. Keep it simple, programmers.


I'd have WindowsXP in the comparison, but Win98 was the last Windows that would run well on that computer because WinME had the super sucky memory management and WinXP is trying to look like OS X. I have never seen XP crash so far. It has hung, but never for more than 1 minute, it actually seems to fix itself.

[Skatche]

a) You need to optimize your kernel. You probably have a billion services, drivers, etc running that you don't need.
b) KDE is slow even on fast computers, because it is fat and bloated (I use it anyway though ). Gnome, however, shouldn't be slow.
c) A 2 MB video card is simply disgusting. At the very least get a 4 MB one!
d) Windows XP is not hanging and repairing itself. It is simply going pathetically slow on your (similairly) pathetically slow machine.

[AlexMax]

P133, 32MB RAM, 2MB video card system,

There's your problem. I have a VERY similar system, and had trouble running KDE. Switch your window manager, or better yet, stick to the bash command prompt.

And of course Linux takes a long time to load. You're not supposed to shut it down that often.

And it didn't really freeze. It just takes an obscenely long time to load stuff on a system of your calibre. Use tvm as your window manager, and trust me, you will see performance increase ten-fold.

[AtmaWeapon]

Originally posted by Skatche

d) Windows XP is not hanging and repairing itself. It is simply going pathetically slow on your (similairly) pathetically slow machine.

If a Pentium 4 1.4 Ghz 256MB RDRAM machine is pathetically slow, what is your definition of fast? And I'm pretty sure it's program errors in XP that are making it hang, since while the one program is frozen everything else works perfectly all right.


I know the computer I installed Linux on is pathetic, but you still haven't acknowledged my point. Windows 98 runs perfect on that computer, Linux doesn't. Like I said before, why make an OS that takes a large computer to run? I'm somewhat disgusted with WinME and WinXP for the power that they take to run. An OS should be small; it is going to be running as long as your computer is on, so why not make it small and use very little memory? A CLI is perfect for this, but why do we need large icons in 32-bit color in our GUI? Why must every element have some kind of animation?

[Skatche]

I thought you were running a P133 with 32 MB of RAM and a 2 MB video card.

[vegeta1215]

Originally posted by Skatche
a) You need to optimize your kernel. You probably have a billion services, drivers, etc running that you don't need.
b) KDE is slow even on fast computers, because it is fat and bloated (I use it anyway though ). Gnome, however, shouldn't be slow.
c) A 2 MB video card is simply disgusting. At the very least get a 4 MB one!
d) Windows XP is not hanging and repairing itself. It is simply going pathetically slow on your (similairly) pathetically slow machine.

Exactly. You definitly need more power. 32 megs of RAM and a 2meg video card just won't do.

KDE 2.2 is bloated, but I heard KDE 3.0 is alot better cause it uses the newer qt. Either way, I wouldn't use KDE on that machine, I'd use IceWM.

Don't get discouraged though, Atmaweapon. It's easy to get frustrated when starting out, especially when setting up your hardware and configuring your system for optimal performance. I had someone help me set up my computer.

I have a k6-2 @ 523 mhrtz, with 256 megs RAM, 32meg video card. It's not really fasy, but it's other benefits far outrank speed. If you put Linux on a P4 system (as you suggested above), that sucker would fly! Yes, Penguins can fly!

[DarkDragoonX]

M$ may be bastardly, but Windows is still my preferred OS. More games. 'Nuff said.

[Mak-X]

How would an OS or any software advance if it didn't take a more powerful computer to run it? How could it do the new enhanced things its suppose to do without more power?

[AlexMax]

When it NEEDLESSLY UNOPTOMIZED!

Hell, I betcha there are bits of code in your precious Windows XP that havn't changed or have been optomized since WINDOWS FRIGGIN 286!

But why update it? Just build AROUND the bad code, like Microshit always does.

Linux on the other hand has OPTOMIZED code, which ultimately runs stuff better, with less crashes and you know what, we can PROVE that because Linux is GPL. Windows, on the other hand, isn't, but crashing every five seconds sure doesn't sound good.

And again, Linux did not crash. I had a system with almost the same config. You're just impatiant. It took almost 10 minutes (literally) for KDE to display the HELP box. But it's not Linux's fault. It's KDE's. Just use tvm, and your P133 will do a lot better.

Better yet, just stick with bash. That sucker SCREAMS and outperforms DOS in every way.

[Mak-X]

I run Windows 98, this computer can't run Windows XP anyways. I've never used Windows XP.
Ah, you know what, I don't know what I'm talking about. Make fun of my ignorance if you wish. I just assumed that with each leap in software a more powerful computer is needed and thought it would apply to a OS.